DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix2 2 Marine and Coa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix2 2 Marine and Coa Amendment of Environmental Management Programmes for Mining Rights 554MRC, 10025MRC, 512MRC and 513MRC Marine and Coastal Ecology Assessment Prepared for: SLR Environmental Consulting (Pty) Ltd On behalf of: Alexkor RMC Pooling and Sharing JV October 2017 Amendment of Environmental Management Programmes for Mining Rights 554MRC, 10025MRC, 512MRC and 513MRC MARINE AND COASTAL ECOLOGY ASSESSMENT Prepared for SLR Environmental Consulting (Pty) Ltd On behalf of: Alexkor RMC Pooling and Sharing JV Prepared by Andrea Pulfrich Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd September 2017 Contact Details: Andrea Pulfrich Pisces Environmental Services PO Box 31228, Tokai 7966, South Africa, Tel: +27 21 782 9553 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.pisces.co.za MARINE and COASTAL ECOLOGY – EMPR Amendment for Mining Rights 554MRC, 10025MRC, 512MRC and 513MRC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1. Scope of Work ................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Approach to the Study ...................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Assumptions, Limitations and Information Gaps ................................................ 2 1.2.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................................................. 3 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 6 2.1. Introduction................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Marine Prospecting .......................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Geophysical Surveys ................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Sampling ............................................................................................ 10 2.3. Marine Mining ............................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Boat- and Shore-Based Diver Assisted Mining ................................................. 11 2.3.1.1 Boat-based diver assisted mining .................................................. 11 2.3.1.2 Shore-based diver assisted mining ................................................. 12 2.3.2 Coffer Dam Mining ................................................................................. 13 2.3.3 Inter-Tidal Beach Mining Using Mobile Pump Units ........................................... 14 2.3.4 Large Vessel Mining ............................................................................... 15 2.3.4.1 Vessel-based remote dredge pump mining ....................................... 15 2.3.4.2 Vessel-based airlift mining.......................................................... 15 2.3.4.3 Vessel-based remote crawler mining .............................................. 17 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................ 18 3.1. Geophysical Characteristics .............................................................................. 18 3.1.1 Bathymetry ......................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Coastal and Inner-shelf Geology and Seabed Geomorphology .............................. 19 3.2. Biophysical Characteristics ............................................................................... 20 3.2.1 Wind Patterns ...................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Large-Scale Circulation and Coastal Currents ................................................. 22 3.2.3 Waves and Tides ................................................................................... 23 3.2.4 Water ................................................................................................ 23 3.2.5 Upwelling & Plankton Production ............................................................... 25 3.2.6 Organic Inputs ...................................................................................... 25 3.2.7 Low Oxygen Events ................................................................................ 26 3.2.8 Turbidity ............................................................................................ 27 3.3. The Biological Environment .............................................................................. 30 3.3.1 Sandy and Unconsolidated Substrate Habitats and Biota .................................... 31 Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd i MARINE and COASTAL ECOLOGY – EMPR Amendment for Mining Rights 554MRC, 10025MRC, 512MRC and 513MRC 3.3.1.1 Intertidal Sandy Beaches ......................................................... 31 3.3.1.2 Nearshore and Offshore unconsolidated habitats ............................... 34 3.3.2 Rocky Substrate Habitats and Biota ............................................................ 37 3.3.2.1 Intertidal Rocky Shores ........................................................... 37 3.3.2.2 Rocky Subtidal Habitat and Kelp Beds.......................................... 40 3.3.2.3 Deep-water coral communities .................................................. 42 3.3.3 The Water Body ................................................................................ 45 3.3.3.1 Demersal Fish Species ............................................................... 45 Plankton .......................................................................................... 46 3.3.3.2 Pelagic Communities ................................................................. 47 Cephalopods ..................................................................................... 48 Pelagic Fish ...................................................................................... 48 Turtles ............................................................................................ 53 Seabirds .......................................................................................... 55 Marine Mammals ................................................................................ 57 3.4. Other Uses of the Area .................................................................................... 67 3.4.1 Beneficial Uses ..................................................................................... 67 3.4.1.1 Diamond Mining ....................................................................... 67 3.4.1.2 Hydrocarbons ......................................................................... 67 3.4.1.3 Kelp Collecting ....................................................................... 68 3.4.1.4 Large-scale Commercial Fisheries ................................................. 72 3.4.1.5 Rock Lobster Fishery ................................................................. 72 3.4.1.6 Recreational Fisheries ............................................................... 73 3.4.1.7 Mariculture ............................................................................ 74 3.4.2 Conservation Areas and Marine Protected Areas ............................................. 74 3.4.3 Threat Status and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems ............................................ 77 4. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 82 4.1. National Legislation ....................................................................................... 82 4.2. International Marine Pollution Conventions ........................................................... 82 4.3. Other South African Legislation ......................................................................... 82 5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF COASTAL AND OFFSHORE MINING ON MARINE FAUNA ........................ 84 5.1. Identification of Impacts ................................................................................. 84 5.2. Project Controls ............................................................................................ 86 5.3. Assessment of Impacts .................................................................................... 86 5.3.1 Physical disturbance of benthic habitats ................................................... 86 5.3.1.1 Disturbance and loss of supratidal habitats and associated biota ............ 86 5.3.1.2 Disturbance and loss of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats and associated biota ................................................................................ 89 5.3.1.3 Physical disturbance of the seabed during prospecting and mining operations in deeper waters ................................................................. 100 Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd ii MARINE and COASTAL ECOLOGY – EMPR Amendment for Mining Rights 554MRC, 10025MRC, 512MRC and 513MRC 5.3.2 Discharge of tailings from classifiers and on-board treatment plants and redistribution of cofferdam wall sediments .......................................................... 108 5.3.3 Disturbance of marine biota by noise ...................................................... 119 5.3.3.1 Generation of underwater noise .................................................. 120 5.3.3.2 Physiological injury in response to geophysical surveying .................... 122 5.3.3.3 Behavioural changes and masking of biologically-relevant sounds in marine fauna in response to geophysical surveying and underwater mining noise
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Eclectic Overview of the SA Marine Science Community
    A biologists’ personal overview of the SA Marine Science community and its outputs (2001-2006)*1 Mark J Gibbons, Department of Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, South Africa. Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT I have analysed 1 295 of the outputs published by the South African Marine Science Community (SAMSC) in either peer-reviewed journals or as books/book chapters for the period 2001-2006, with a view to identifying trends in the field, summarizing institutional overlaps and assessing the demographic state-of-play. Although almost 70% of our outputs were published internationally, we published the bulk of our research in strictly marine science journals which suggests, perhaps, that we need to be thinking bigger. More than 22% of all outputs were led by International colleagues, and these were published in journals with a significantly higher Impact Factor than those led by local authors. Women led less than 25%, and persons from previously disadvantaged backgrounds led less than 10%, of all outputs: this needs monitoring, discussion and pro-active response by employers. Thirty-six authors (~95% male, ~97% white) were responsible for more than 50% of all outputs, which suggests that the field is not totally dominated by an ageing cohort. Despite the fact that the bulk of the SAMSC is centred in the SW Cape, our study areas are approximately equally spread around the coastline, though there is an obvious institutional bias to the geographical location of study sites. Globally-orientated studies were generally published in “better” outlets than locally-orientated work, and were more likely to be led by international colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • TNP SOK 2011 Internet
    GARDEN ROUTE NATIONAL PARK : THE TSITSIKAMMA SANP ARKS SECTION STATE OF KNOWLEDGE Contributors: N. Hanekom 1, R.M. Randall 1, D. Bower, A. Riley 2 and N. Kruger 1 1 SANParks Scientific Services, Garden Route (Rondevlei Office), PO Box 176, Sedgefield, 6573 2 Knysna National Lakes Area, P.O. Box 314, Knysna, 6570 Most recent update: 10 May 2012 Disclaimer This report has been produced by SANParks to summarise information available on a specific conservation area. Production of the report, in either hard copy or electronic format, does not signify that: the referenced information necessarily reflect the views and policies of SANParks; the referenced information is either correct or accurate; SANParks retains copies of the referenced documents; SANParks will provide second parties with copies of the referenced documents. This standpoint has the premise that (i) reproduction of copywrited material is illegal, (ii) copying of unpublished reports and data produced by an external scientist without the author’s permission is unethical, and (iii) dissemination of unreviewed data or draft documentation is potentially misleading and hence illogical. This report should be cited as: Hanekom N., Randall R.M., Bower, D., Riley, A. & Kruger, N. 2012. Garden Route National Park: The Tsitsikamma Section – State of Knowledge. South African National Parks. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 2. ACCOUNT OF AREA........................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Heller a Natural History Illustrator: Tuvia Kurz
    Joseph Heller Sea Snails A natural history Illustrator: Tuvia Kurz Sea Snails Joseph Heller Sea Snails A natural history Illustrator: Tuvia Kurz Joseph Heller Evolution, Systematics and Ecology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem , Israel ISBN 978-3-319-15451-0 ISBN 978-3-319-15452-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15452-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015941284 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Printed on acid-free paper Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Contents Part I A Background 1 What Is a Mollusc? ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Diet of the Freshwater Clingfish, Gobiesox Cephalus (Teleostei: Gobiesocidae)
    The Diet of the freshwater clingfish, Gobiesox cephalus (Teleostei: Gobiesocidae) Kaitlyn Forks Melissa Hopkins Sarah Veillon Whitney Ward Dominica Study Abroad 2014 Texas A&M University Dr. Thomas Lacher, Jr. and Dr. Jim Woolley Abstract The purpose of this study is to describe the diet of the freshwater clingfish, Gobiesox cephalus (Lacepède 1800), based on specimens collected from the Belfast River in Dominica, West Indies. 29 specimens were collected in total from an 88 foot stretch of river, with an average depth of 8.16 inches and average velocity of 0.7 m/s. Stomach content analysis revealed the diet of the freshwater clingfish to be comprised almost exclusively of aquatic insect larvae, specifically Trichoptera, Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera, Zygoptera, Diptera, and unidentifiable insect parts. Cycloid scales and small stones were also found in the stomachs of a small number of individuals. The diet of the freshwater clingfish differs from that of other clingfishes that have been investigated to date, which feed predominantly on crustaceans and other hard-bodied invertebrates. Introduction Members of the family Gobiesocidae are small marine fishes found predominantly in the intertidal zones of the Atlantic (including the Mediterranean Sea) and Indo-Pacific Oceans (Briggs, 1955). There are however a few members of the family that inhabit freshwater. The freshwater species are predominately found in Central and northern South America and inhabit fast moving rivers (Briggs, 1955). Commonly known as clingfish, gobiesocids possess a remarkable suction disk on their ventral surface with which they attach to the substrate (Wainwright et al., 2014). At present, there are 164 species distributed across 47 genera (Eschmeyer and Fong, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Apletodon Gabonensis, a New Species of Clingfish (Teleostei: Gobiesocidae) from Gabon, Eastern Atlantic Ocean
    Arquipelago - Life and Marine Sciences ISSN: 0873-4704 Apletodon gabonensis, a new species of clingfish (Teleostei: Gobiesocidae) from Gabon, eastern Atlantic Ocean RONALD FRICKE AND PETER WIRTZ Fricke, R. and P. Wirtz 2018. Apletodon gabonensis, a new species of clingfish (Teleostei: Gobiesocidae) from Gabon, eastern Atlantic Ocean. Arquipelago. Life and Marine Sciences 36: 1 - 8. https://doi.org/10.25752/arq.19847 The clingfish Apletodon gabonensis sp. nov. is described on the basis of seven specimens and colour photographs from Gabon, eastern Atlantic Ocean. The species is small, apparently not exceeding 20 mm total length; it is characterized by having 5 dorsal-fin rays, 4-5 anal-fin rays, 25-27 pectoral-fin rays, head width in males 2.6-4.7 in SL, anus in males with urogenital papilla present but not pronounced; snout long, broad, anteriorly truncate in male, narrower and rather pointed in female; preorbital length 1.8-3.8 in head length; conspicuous maxillary barbel absent in both sexes; disc with 10-12 rows of papillae in region A, 5 rows of papillae in region B, and 5-7 rows of papillae in region C. The new species is compared with the other species of the genus; a key to the males of the 6 known species of the eastern Atlantic genus Apletodon is presented. Key words: clingfishes, systematics, Gabon, distribution, identification key. Ronald Fricke (e-mail: [email protected]), Im Ramstal 76, 97922 Lauda-Königshofen, Germany. PeterWirtz (e.mail: [email protected]), Centro de Ciências do Mar, Universidade do Algarve, PT-8005-139 Faro, Portugal.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cape Town (UCT) in Terms of the Non-Exclusive License Granted to UCT by the Author
    The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town , THE HISTORICAL EXPLOITATION OF CHONDRICHTHYANS IN FALSE BAY, SOUTH AFRICA AND ASSESSMENT OF THEIR CONSERVATION STATUS by Lauren Nicole Best Town Supervisor: Professor Colin Attwood Cape of Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Omithology University of Cape Town Rondebosch, Cape Town South Africa 7701 UniversityEmail: [email protected] 21 sl May 2012 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Conservation Biology TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM DECLARATION .......................................................... .iv ABSTRACT ...................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Global crisis ........................................................................................... 1 1.2. Why chondrichthyans? .............................................................................. 2 1.3. Direct- and indirect-fishing ......................................................................... .4 1.4. Management and protection .........................................................................Town
    [Show full text]
  • KING-THESIS-2017.Pdf (2.949Mb)
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETIC INVESTIGATION OF THE CLINGFISHES (TELEOSTEI: GOBIESOCIDAE) A Thesis by CRAGEN DANIELLE KING Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Chair of Committee, Kevin W. Conway Committee Members, Gary Voelker David Portnoy Interdisciplinary Faculty Chair, Duncan MacKenzie December 2017 Major Subject: Marine Biology Copyright 2017 Cragen Danielle King ABSTRACT Currently, there are roughly 170 species of clingfishes (family Gobiesocidae) divided between ten subfamilies in a “phenetic” classification scheme proposed over 60 years ago. Recently, an alternative classification scheme was proposed which included only two subfamilies. For this study, a large scale multi-locus investigation on the phylogenetic relationships of the Gobiesocidae was conducted using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence data to assess whether the two available classification schemes reflect the evolutionary relationships of the group. Phylogenetic hypotheses are obtained from Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood analyses of two mitochondrial (12S and COI; 1062 bp) and five nuclear genes (ENC1, GLYT, MYH6, SH3PX3, and ZIC1; 3785 bp) for 81 species of clingfishes. Four of the ten subfamilies (Aspasminae, Diademichthyinae, Diplocrepinae, and Gobiesocinae) and four genera (Aspasmichthys, Cochleoceps, Lepadichthys, and Lepadogaster) are obtained as not monophyletic. The resulting topologies also do not recover the two-subfamily classification scheme as useful for classifying clingfishes because subfamily Cheilobranchinae is obtained as a monophyletic group that is deeply embedded inside the second subfamily Gobiesocinae. The two available classification schemes and their included subfamilies are discussed in detail. ii DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my grandparents, parents, siblings, and to the Smiths for all of their love and support.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to the Living Marine Resources of Namibia.Pdf
    FAOSPECIESIDENTIFICATIONGUIDEFORFISHERYPURPOSES ISSN 1020-6868 FIELD GUIDE TO THE LIVING MARINE RESOURCES OF NAMIBIA Food and NORAD Agriculture Organization Norwegian of Agency for the International United Nations Development FAO SPECIES IDENTIFICATION FIELD GUIDE FOR FISHERY PURPOSES THE LIVING MARINE RESOURCES OF NAMIBIA by G. Bianchi Institute of Marine Research P.O. Box 1870, N-5024 Bergen, Norway K.E. Carpenter Department of Biological Sciences Old Dominion University Norfolk, Virginia 23529 USA J.-P. Roux Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources P.O. Box 394 Lüderitz, Namibia F.J. Molloy Biology Departmant Faculty of Science University of Namibia Private Bag 31 Windhoek, Namibia D. Boyer and H.J. Boyer Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources P.O. Box 912 Swakopmund, Namibia With the financial support of NORAD Norwegian Agency for International Development INDEX FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ROME, 1999 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M-40 ISBN 92-5-104345-0 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organiztion of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Chorisochismus Dentex (Pisces: Gobiesocidae)
    Feeding habits of the giant clingfish Chorisochismus dentex (Pisces: Gobiesocidae) R.E. Stobbs J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown The feeding habits of the giant clingfish Chorisochismus The Gobiesocidae is a small, widely distributed family of dentex in the eastern Cape Province, South Africa, are fishes. The largest species, Chorisochismus dentex (pallas described. Juveniles share a diet of small crustaceans with 1769), which reaches a maximum length of 300 mm (Smith numerous other fish species but adults feed on sea urchins as 1964), is endemic to South Africa (Briggs 1955). It is found well as on a rarely used resource -limpets (Patellidae) which from South West Mrica to Natal and is an inhabitant of are firmly attached to rocks in the intertidal zone. The limpets rock pools and intertidal and marginally subtidal zones. are removed by levering with the large upper incisiform teeth. Undigested shells are eliminated whole encased in mucous The food and feeding habits of C. dentex have received capsules. only scant mention in the literature. Jackson (1950) found s. Afr. J. Zool. 1980,15: 146 -149 that all food found in the stomachs of C. dentex contained molluscs. Smith (1964) stated that C. dentex eat various Die eetgewoontes van die groot suiervis Chorisochismus crustacea, chiefly crabs, also molluscs, usually different dentex in die Oos-Kaap-Provinsie, Suid-Afrika, word beskryf. species of Patella Linn. which it apparently mostly swallows Die jong visse deel 'n dieet van klein skaaldiere met baie ander whole. Gow (1968) found that Patella is the main food . ) vissoorte, maar die volwasse visse eet seekastaiings asook 'n animal.
    [Show full text]
  • APP a Marine Ecology Study.Pdf
    Proposed Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of the Marine Outfall Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure for Frontier Saldanha Utilities (Pty) Ltd in the Saldanha Bay Region, Western Cape Marine Ecology Specialist Study Prepared for: Prepared by: PISCES Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd September 2014 PISCES Envir onmental Services (Pt y) Lt d Contact Details: Andrea Pulfrich, Pisces Environmental Services PO Box 31228, Tokai 7966, South Africa, E-mail: [email protected] Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed construction, operation and decommissioning of the Saldanha Regional Marine Outfall project of Frontier Saldanha Utilities (Pty) Ltd. at Danger Bay in the Saldanha Bay region EXPERTISE AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE This report was prepared by Dr Andrea Pulfrich of Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd. Established in 1998, Pisces has aquired considerable experience in undertaking specialist environmental impact assessments, baseline and monitoring studies, and Environmental Management Programmes relating to marine diamond mining and dredging, hydrocarbon exploration, harbour expansions and thermal/hypersaline effluents. Andrea has a BSc (Hons) and MSc degree in Zoology from the University of Cape Town and a PhD in Fisheries Biology from the Institute for Marine Science at the Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany. She is a registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner and member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions, South African Institute of Ecologists and Environmental Scientists, and International Association of Impact Assessment (South Africa). This specialist report was compiled as a desktop study on behalf of the CSIR, Stellenbosch for their use in preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment Report and developing an Environmental Management Plan for the proposed construction, operation and decommissioning of the marine outfall pipeline and associated infrastructure for Frontier Saldanha Utilities (Pty) Ltd in the Saldanha Bay Region, Western Cape.
    [Show full text]
  • Species-Specific Effects of Marine Reserves: Mortality and Growth Differ Within and Among Heavily Exploited and Rarely Exploited Limpets
    Vol. 445: 53–63, 2012 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published January 20 doi: 10.3354/meps09470 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Species-specific effects of marine reserves: mortality and growth differ within and among heavily exploited and rarely exploited limpets M. D. V. Nakin1,2,*, A. J. Booth3, C. D. McQuaid2 1Department of Zoology, Walter Sisulu University, Private Bag X 1, Mthatha, 5100, South Africa 2Coastal Research Group, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University PO Box 94, Grahamstown, South Africa 3Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown, South Africa ABSTRACT: The effects of marine reserves on the growth and mortality rates of 2 commonly exploited (Helcion concolor and Scutellastra longicosta) and 2 rarely exploited (Cellana capensis and Scutellastra granularis) limpets were investigated at 2 reserve and 2 non-reserve sites in South Africa. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) growth of commonly exploited species would be reduced in reserves due to higher densities and stronger intraspecific competition, with no effect for rarely exploited species; (2) commonly exploited species would show higher mortality rates outside than inside reserves, with no effect for rarely exploited species. Both the exploited H. con- color and C. capensis (sometimes mistaken for H. concolor by harvesters) exhibited faster growth at non-reserve sites where their densities were generally lower. No effect of reserve status was detected for the growth rates of S. granularis (rarely exploited) or S. longicosta (commonly exploited). S. longicosta showed no reserve effect on growth because it is territorial, and density has no effect on territory size. Reserve effects were only observed for the survival probability of S.
    [Show full text]
  • ¿Puede El Ciclo Lunar Afectar La Dieta De Larvas De Peces? Un Estudio En El Pejesapo Gobiesox Marmoratus (Gobiesocidae)
    UNIVERSIDAD DE VALPARAÍSO FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS DEL MAR Y DE RECURSOS NATURALES CARRERA DE BIOLOGÍA MARINA ¿Puede el ciclo lunar afectar la dieta de larvas de peces? Un estudio en el pejesapo Gobiesox marmoratus (Gobiesocidae) TESIS JUANITA DE LOS RÍOS MÉNDEZ 2018 JUANITA DE LOS RÍOS MÉNDEZ Trabajo de Titulación presentado en conformidad a los requisitos para obtener el título profesional de Biólogo Marino COMISIÓN DE TÍTULO Dr. Mauricio Landaeta Díaz Director Universidad de Valparaíso Dra. Maritza Sepúlveda Martínez MSc. Matias Hüne Miembro de la comisión Miembro de la comisión Universidad de Valparaíso Fundación Ictiológica 2 TABLA DE CONTENIDO INTRODUCCION ................................................................................................................ 10 Género Gobiesox ........................................................................................................... 12 Gobiesox marmoratus ................................................................................................... 13 Alimentación en larvas de peces ................................................................................... 13 Efecto de la marea y luminosidad lunar ........................................................................ 14 OBJETIVOS ......................................................................................................................... 17 Objetivo general ............................................................................................................ 17 Objetivos específicos ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]